I've been working hard on this. Every time I hear someone say something, I'd think about how it would be grammatically said in my language. Such as that "make me a sandwich" and stuff like that.

Please check my language and tell me what you think. I also need a bit of help there.

I need a list of semantic primes so that I can start working on the language's vocabulary. Is there such a list?
And when I make the primes, how do I make compound words? Such as "consistent", "communication", "extract", etc.. I was thinking of importing those from English.

The point of my language is to be dynamical with lots of inflections and agglutinations to be able to translate the Bible in a way that everyone can understand it without doubt of the context. I want to have more words for fear, more words for love, more words for critical things over which many Christians fight causing drama. I want to stop the drama. Also, the language will be used in a fictional world.

OTʜᴇB wrote:May I suggest a distinction between an inclusive and exclusive 1PL as it can have a big impact if you want it to be very understandable.

I don't quite understand what you mean. The reason I added this is because in conversations sometimes one says "But we..." and the other party said "Who we?". This way it can be known.

1PL.EXCL excludes the listener. "We won the lottery! - you didn't"
1PL.INCL includes the listener. "We (including you) won the lottery!"
It negates the need for the extra question, improving understanding and efficiency of conversation.
On an unrelated note: Do you have a phonology you could show us?

Zvoc47 wrote:
I need a list of semantic primes so that I can start working on the language's vocabulary. Is there such a list?

There is no such thing as a semantic prime, in the sense of a fundamental meaning that is always signified by an underived word. Although of course it is generally true that commonplace things will be more likely to have underived words, while rarer (or rarer-spoken-of) things will be more likely to have derived terms. So "fire" is more likely to be a short, underived term, while "indecipherability" is more likely to be a derived term.

The point of my language is to be dynamical with lots of inflections and agglutinations to be able to translate the Bible in a way that everyone can understand it without doubt of the context. I want to have more words for fear, more words for love, more words for critical things over which many Christians fight causing drama. I want to stop the drama.

This is not possible, for two reasons.

First, all meaning depends upon context, and no words can ever be unambiguous or eliminate the role of context.

Second, you cannot eliminate disagreement over intended meaning, or translate without doubt, unless you know for certain, without doubt, exactly what the original meaning actually was. Unless you are personally God, this is not possible - which is exactly why there have been millennia of disagreement.

Zvoc47 wrote:
I need a list of semantic primes so that I can start working on the language's vocabulary. Is there such a list?

There is no such thing as a semantic prime, in the sense of a fundamental meaning that is always signified by an underived word. Although of course it is generally true that commonplace things will be more likely to have underived words, while rarer (or rarer-spoken-of) things will be more likely to have derived terms. So "fire" is more likely to be a short, underived term, while "indecipherability" is more likely to be a derived term.

I agree insofar that I do not believe there are semantic primes. I disagree that they cannot exist. In fact people have proposed something along these lines.

Zvoc47 wrote:
I need a list of semantic primes so that I can start working on the language's vocabulary. Is there such a list?

There is no such thing as a semantic prime, in the sense of a fundamental meaning that is always signified by an underived word. Although of course it is generally true that commonplace things will be more likely to have underived words, while rarer (or rarer-spoken-of) things will be more likely to have derived terms. So "fire" is more likely to be a short, underived term, while "indecipherability" is more likely to be a derived term.

I agree insofar that I do not believe there are semantic primes. I disagree that they cannot exist. In fact people have proposed something along these lines.

But there should be a simple list to start making the vocabulary from.

OTʜᴇB wrote:

Zvoc47 wrote:

OTʜᴇB wrote:May I suggest a distinction between an inclusive and exclusive 1PL as it can have a big impact if you want it to be very understandable.

I don't quite understand what you mean. The reason I added this is because in conversations sometimes one says "But we..." and the other party said "Who we?". This way it can be known.

1PL.EXCL excludes the listener. "We won the lottery! - you didn't"
1PL.INCL includes the listener. "We (including you) won the lottery!"
It negates the need for the extra question, improving understanding and efficiency of conversation.
On an unrelated note: Do you have a phonology you could show us?

Alright, I'll do that.
Anyways, I don't have the phonology. I know how to pronounce this, but I don't know how to write those special characters and which of those are said how.
One letter is exactly one sound. There are little deviations allowable such as "existir" can be pronounced "egzistir" or "eksistir" depending on the speaker's will. All characters are Romaji, but c which is ts in cats. Č is ch as in chair. Š is sh as in ash. Ž is g as in French Eugene. W and Y are semi-vowels.

Zvoc47 wrote:This will be hard to manage. Is there a dictionary manager?

It's been a while since the last response here, but if you're still looking for assitance, Lexique Pro is a good, free manager; it organizes things neatly and lets you add notes, example sentences for words, and the like. (Though I think quite a few people get by with Microsoft Excel spreadsheets!)

If you are still working on this project, and interested in sharing more here, I'm interested in the "dynamical modifiers" that you give in the doc, as in koto/kota. They look to be derived from the -yo and -ya gender markings, and you say that koto could also be used to mean kotyo, for example. Can these co-occur with gender markings (eg. kotayo = powerful female cat, kotila = beautiful robotic/un-alive cat) or do they take the place of gender? Also, what do you mean by "pre-future" tense?

Zvoc47 wrote:
The point of my language is to be dynamical with lots of inflections and agglutinations to be able to translate the Bible in a way that everyone can understand it without doubt of the context.

all meaning depends upon context, and no words can ever be unambiguous or eliminate the role of context.

Sure, but for instance in a book the context is... the book...
except some like the Bible, ambigous on purpose, the author try to disambiguate, and the addition of words reduces, as the relationship of the meanings intersect, the possibility of interpretation...
Our mirror neurons are his best allies to allow to convey his thought ...

There is no such thing as a semantic prime, in the sense of a fundamental meaning that is always signified by an underived word.

By definition, any prime you choose will be underived and underivable word...
So, best choice is yours...
Found by the translations you'll do, rather than in prefabricated lists following a posteriori recordings of natural languages, which leads to the semantic relex ...